AGW Deniers: Grand conspiracy or everyone wrong

You don't even know what you are talking about. My link had NOTHING to do with publishing papers. The NSF does not even do that. Hilarious!

 

I am not surprised you don't even know what you linked to. Par for the course.

 

I liked it when you agreed AGW was real and we must reduce co2 immediately. Remember when you said that?

 

Never would be the answer, nothing is as simplistic as that.

 

You did. You also said you can fly and have a unicorn......amoung other lies. Lol

 

Wow, so you still think you are on that 8th grade playground.

 

That's a logical fallacy. Lol

 

I notice this question was not answered

 

How about these questions:

Please define what the climate scientists consider as "right". And how does the findings of the Berkeley Earth group prove that the climate scientists are "right" ??

Who wrote the wikipedia article ?? And is that all that the wiki author could come up with "proving" that the denialist bloggers screamed that Berkely Earth was dishonestly analyzing data to prove the global warming alarmists claims.

I've given you links to Moshers comments on Climate, etc

Here are McIntyre and Watts:

http://climateaudit.org/2011/10/22/first-thoughts-on-best/

http://climateaudit.org/2015/01/05/bogus/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=Berkeley+Earth

These discussions are respectful and hardly the screaming attacks on Berkeley Earth which you portrayed them as. I'd recommend actually reading the discussions of the Berkeley Earth work (Dr. Muller is well respected) and relying less on wikipedia information from unknown sources.

 

And so it goes. Nothing changes. Week after week, the same few denier cult jihadists scream the same nonsense over and over. The real science marches on, while the denier religion stagnates, forever stuck in a barbaric dark age.

At this point, deniers literally no longer care about the science. They're like Islamicists yelling "Allahu Ahkbar!". Deniers and Islamicists know full well they're not convincing the heretics with their chants. That's not the point of the screaming. The point of it is to put on a show for their fellow cultists, who are a dangerous and unstable group. In order to not get attacked by their own cult, deniers have to constantly and publicly demonstrate their fervent loyalty to the cult, hence the constant hysterical screaming of the official cult religious mantras.

So, just like the fight against Islamicism, fighting against denialism is battling for the enlightenment and the rationality of Western Civilization.

 

My question first

 

Are you Bowerbird ??

All reputable technical/science journals require complete disclosure of all raw data and computer codes to be archived before publication of articles.

- - - Updated - - -

A sure sign of a failed argument is to resort to name calling and insults.

 

That would involve READING THE WEBSITE - which is something that you seem to be reluctant to do despite "encouraging" us to read some bloody twonk of a book we would have had to buy

Here is the summary of the findings

http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/

They give a link to their initial objectives - which seem to address most of Steve McIntyres objections in relation to current temperature analysis



Who wrote the wikipedia article ?? And is that all that the wiki author could come up with "proving" that the denialist bloggers screamed that Berkely Earth was dishonestly analyzing data to prove the global warming alarmists claims.

I've given you links to Moshers comments on Climate, etc

Here are McIntyre and Watts:

http://climateaudit.org/2011/10/22/first-thoughts-on-best/

http://climateaudit.org/2015/01/05/bogus/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=Berkeley+Earth

These discussions are respectful and hardly the screaming attacks on Berkeley Earth which you portrayed them as. I'd recommend actually reading the discussions of the Berkeley Earth work (Dr. Muller is well respected) and relying less on wikipedia information from unknown sources.[/QUOTE]


The first link is a comment on initial findings and although Mcintyre claims not to be critical it is full of criticism. This link is also 5 years old and only on initial findings

The second link has nothing to do with the Berkeley Earth project

As for Watts snide comments about publication - I would hardly call that a ringing endorsement

Thing is they have difficulty criticising the dataset and the analysis simply because Berkeley has been transparent - that does not mean they like the conclusions or would endorse the result

Here is more criticisms

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/bl...best-and-the-surface-record-all-in-one-paper/

So, no they are not happy about the BEST conclusions - but then why should they be? After all Watts has been in the pocket of the Heartland Institute and if you are interested the Email scandal from the Heartland make climate gate look like a nice bunch of old boys chatting around a fire

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/02/heartland-institute-documents-climate

- - - Updated - - -

Agreed VG has priority

 

My question would be, in who's pocket does a scientist need to be for you to accept?

 

The first is a link to McIntyre's Climate Audit on BEST. He has not commented on BEST since then so it's hard to show that he has been involved in any screaming attacks on BEST.

The second link was not about BEST but about Mann.

And the third link is a list of a posts on BEST - fact based criticism is a part of the scientific process and should be welcomed.

Again all you have is an anonymous wikipedia article and a link to a JoNova with a cartoon and a link to this:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/

which is a reasonable discussion of the urban heat island effects when monitoring land surface temperatures.

And of course this is all followed by attacks on Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre again based on the opinions of others and without benefit of actually reading what they have to say. But why invest the time when wikipedia and Mother Jones can do your thinking for you.

 

That is a complete lie. Provide a reference that says they must turn over original computer codes

 

You still have no clue eh? Being able to duplicate the results requires all information used to determine if it is correct. Only scientists that want to hide what they did do not release the info for duplication by other scientists.

 

Why are you afraid to provide a reference showing that scientists ever provide original computer codes? Because you don't have one.

 

I see you can't justify your position.

 

Your ignorance about science is not my responsibility.

 

we agree on that. Vegas avoids the answer every post. very unscience like don't ya think?

- - - Updated - - -

and so it goes, the projecting continues.

- - - Updated - - -

and so it goes, the projecting continues.

- - - Updated - - -

why??????

 

Because I asked it first. I will then answer any question you pose.

 

Again the accountant hands you your posterior. And there is no ethical justification for what Mann and the rest of the Hockey Team (including the management of Nature magazine) has done to avoid supplying the exact data and methods to the public for scrutiny. The obvious conclusion is that they were trying to hide the fact that the analysis would not stand up to the light of day (as many of the Hockey Team realized).

The Hockey Stick Illusion - loc 2111

 

You have a page written by an accountant. Is that a valid reference in your world? You know I think you think it actually is? No where even on that page does Nature say they did not get everything they required. And that is hilarious.

 

The only place the hockey stick is given credence is on alarmist blogs. Everyone else recognizes it is bad science, even Briffa that did the tree ring study that Mann used.